Interim Injunction Granted Against Deceptively Similar Single-Letter Logo Marks Notwithstanding Rival Trademark Registrations and Lack of Phonetic Identity

The Plaintiff, a global athletic footwear company established in 1906, sought an ad-interim injunction against the Defendants for using marks deceptively similar to its registered 'N-marks'.

The Plaintiff first used the 'N' logo in the 1970s and obtained Indian registration as early as 1987.

The Defendants, Swiss and Indian entities, launched a sneaker line under the brand 'NUBEAT' in April 2024, featuring secondary logos "n:" and "n" in lower case.

Despite the Plaintiff’s "shaded logo" and "NB" marks being declared "well-known," the Defendants continued usage, claiming their marks were distinctive and based on the Greek symbol for frequency.

1. Whether the Defendants' use of the "n:" and "n" logos constitutes passing off or infringement despite the Defendants holding their own trademark registrations.

2. Whether the rival marks are deceptively similar, taking into account the "initial interest confusion" test and the "anti-dissection" rule.

Section 27(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which saves common law rights of action for passing off regardless of registration status.

The "Classical Trinity" of passing off—goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage—as established in Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd. v. Borden Inc.

Prior User principle from S. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochana Bai.

The "Initial Interest Confusion" doctrine from Under Armour Inc v. Anish Agarwal.

The "Anti-Dissection Rule" from Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta was used to compare the marks as a whole.

The Court found that the Plaintiff had established overwhelming goodwill through decades of prior use and judicial recognition of its marks as well-known.

In applying the "initial interest confusion" test, the Court reasoned that an average consumer of imperfect recollection would focus on the dominant letter 'n' rather than the inconspicuous "colon" punctuation or minor typographical differences in case (upper vs. lower).

The Court dismissed the Defendants' "common to trade" defense, noting that mere registrations by third parties without proof of substantial use do not dilute the Plaintiff's distinctiveness.

Furthermore, the Defendants’ own admission that the colon represented a stylized 'B' suggested a phonetic similarity to the Plaintiff's registered "NB" mark.

The identical nature of the goods (footwear) and similar trade channels increased the likelihood of "wonderment" regarding a potential association or collaboration between the parties.

While the "nu:beat" word marks were not restrained, the Court issued an ad-interim injunction restraining the Defendants from using the specific "n:" and "n" logos.

The Court concluded that balance of convenience favored the Plaintiff, as continued use would dilute its well-known marks and cause irreparable injury. The application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC was allowed.